Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1011 (RAJ)

Hunny Middha v. State of Rajasthan

2025-04-04

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i) The office order dated 11.03.2025 (Annex-9) issued by the respondent UIT may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The mauka fard and transfer letter dated 12.03.2025 (Annex-10) issued by the respondent UIT may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) The agenda no.10 of minutes of meeting of respondent UIT dated 04.03.2025 (Annex-11) may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) The possession of the site in question may kindly be handed back to the petitioner till the expiry of the contract period i.e. 14.02.2026 with immediate effect and permit the petitioners to operate marriage palace upon the site in question. (v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a leaseholder of the site reserved for the Sadbhavana Nagar Yojna Auditorium, located at Suratgarh-Padampur Bypass. Originally, this property was leased to the petitioner for five years, effective from 15.02.2015 to 14.02.2020, with the condition in the original contract that the lease could be extended further by mutual consent of the parties. The petitioner, by investing a substantial amount, developed the site. By order dated 10.02.2020, the lease period was extended from 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025, and the contractor was directed to deposit an annual amount of Rs.6,16,700/- to the respondents. 3. During the pandemic period, the business activities on the leased area could not be carried out for one year from March 2020. As per the policy decision of the State Government, the Trust, by agenda No. 23 in the meeting held on 25.06.2020, considered the pandemic situation and decided to extend period of lease and consequential the 2 nd respondent has communicated order dated 17.03.2021, informing the extension of lease period upto 14-6-2026 by treating the commencement of lease period from 01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026. The auditorium was booked for various events and function well in advance and abrupt determination of contract without any such power amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. 4. The respondent authorities, in their Trust meeting on 04.03.2025, decided to cancel the lease without issuing any notice. on the grounds that there are alterations in the contract agreement regarding the lease period. 4. The respondent authorities, in their Trust meeting on 04.03.2025, decided to cancel the lease without issuing any notice. on the grounds that there are alterations in the contract agreement regarding the lease period. Consequently, they passed the present impugned order canceling the contract and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the site. 5. The case set up by 2 nd respondent is that writ petition is not maintainable in respect of disputes relating to contractual matter and appropriate forum is civil court. It is also pleaded that the contract period was not extended but only rent of year for the year 2020 to 2021 is adjusted for the year 2021-2022 due to pandemic situation. The 2 nd respondent trust had noticed such irregularities in the contract document and rights decided to cancel the contract and cancellation of contract is in the interest of public. It is also pleaded that the 2 nd respondent trust has power to cancel contract without notice by invoking the condition no.8 of the contract. 6. The counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Dron Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 agreed for final disposal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 8. The grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the impugned order of the respondents was passed without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was not heard before adverse order was passed against him, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, writ petition is maintainable. The second argument is that the respondents have relied upon Condition No. 8 of the Contract to cancel the lease and take possession of the property before the completion of the contract period. It is the case of the petitioner that Condition No. 8 do not apply to cases where the authorities intend to terminate the contract prematurely. This condition is applicable only to the initial stage of entering into the contract. 9. Per contra, the learned AAG and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matter and appropriate forum is civil court. This condition is applicable only to the initial stage of entering into the contract. 9. Per contra, the learned AAG and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that writ petition is not maintainable in contractual matter and appropriate forum is civil court. It is also contended that 2 nd respondent trust is entitled to cancel contract without any notice and such power is exercised as per Condition No. 8 of the contract. It is also their argument that Condition No. 8 enables them to terminate the contract prematurely and it is not confined only to the initial stage of the contract but any time. 10. I have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the orders impugned as well as material available on record. 11. It is needless to say that there is no absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition in contractual matter but there are exceptions. The writ petition is maintainable in contractual matters if the State acts arbitrarily or discriminately, violating constitutional principles like Articles 14 and 21. It is an admitted fact that the impugned orders were passed without any notice to the petitioner. This action of the respondents clearly amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 12. The facts disclose that the original contract period was from 15.02.2015 to 14.02.2020, and a fresh contract was entered into on 11.02.2020 for five years commencing from 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025. The document (Annexure-4) is the order extending the original period of the contract from 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025, based on the resolution of the Trust. Subsequently, a further meeting was held by the Trust on 25.06.2020, during which it was decided to extend the contract period, taking into consideration the prevailing pandemic situation. The Trust decided to extend the period of lease for one year and adjusted the lease amount of initial one year in the next year and this means that the commencement of the five-year lease period would be from 01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026, instead of 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025. The proceedings issued by the Secretary, UIT (Annexure-7), clearly show that the contract period shall commence from 01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026. The proceedings issued by the Secretary, UIT (Annexure-7), clearly show that the contract period shall commence from 01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026. The main ground, as stated in the resolution of the Trust during its meeting dated 04.03.2025, is the decision to pre-determine the lease period by canceling the lease contract on the grounds that there were some corrections in the contract document concerning the lease period. As evident from the final extension order, contained in Annexure-7 and supported by the minutes of the Trust, it is clearly indicated that the one- year period has been waived off for the purpose of counting the five-year lease period, which was originally granted to the petitioner. The authorities, by granting such an extension, treated the commencement of the contract from 01.04.2021 to 14.02.2026, instead of 15.02.2020 to 14.02.2025. Had there been no extension under the minutes of the meeting and the proceedings of the Secretary, UIT, the contention regarding the alteration of the contract period under the contract would have been significant. Although the alteration was made, it appears that the years have been modified, but this alteration is supported by minutes of the Trust as well as the proceedings of the Secretary issued. 13. The respondents have relied on Condition No. 8 of the contract to invoke the pre-determination of the contract. English translation of Condition No.8 of the original contract reads as follows: 8. The Chairman Nagar Vikas Nyas, Sri Ganganagar will have full authority to accept/reject the contract, for which it will not be necessary to give reasons. 14. A reading of the above condition clearly shows that the Chairman of Nagar Vikas Nyas, Sri Ganganagar, has the right to reject the contract, and such a condition cannot be used to pre- determine the contract. The Chairman of the UIT has discretion at the initial stage of the contract either to accept or reject the contract. Once the contract is concluded and the respondents in order to pre-determine the contract, they must demonstrate that such a power exists with them. The only power traceable is Condition No. 8. However, Condition No. 8 do not enable them to pre-determine the contract. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. Once the contract is concluded and the respondents in order to pre-determine the contract, they must demonstrate that such a power exists with them. The only power traceable is Condition No. 8. However, Condition No. 8 do not enable them to pre-determine the contract. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 cancelling the contract and directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the site is set aside. 16. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.